http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&type=per_minute&per_minute_base=36&year_min=1986&year_max=2009&season_start=1&season_end=2&age_min=18&age_max=22&height_min=78&height_max=82&lg_id=NBA&franch_id=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=F&qual=&c1stat=ts_pct&c1comp=lt&c1val=.530&c2stat=trb_pct&c2comp=lt&c2val=11&c3stat=ast_pct&c3comp=lt&c3val=11&c4stat=tov_pct&c4comp=lt&c4val=12&order_by=per

A bunch of them had/are having long careers, and a few had a couple good years in their mid-20s. The only ones I would say were particularly good are Peja and Glen Rice. In both cases it was his rookie year and he turned around and had a much better sophomore year. Both were among the best shooters in the league in their day, I just don’t see Chandler’s shot developing THAT much after two seasons in the league. Could happen, but would be an outlier. Also telling that theoretically his shot may have to develop THAT much for him to be good.
Korver’s been a decent role player, but already had the 3 pt shot from day 1. Tracy Murray was a good 3 pt shooter on his career as well, and he developed a deadly 3 by his 2nd season.

The thing that really sticks out is the lack of good athletes and presence of fairly one-dimensional jump-shooters. That’s what concerns me the most about Chandler: he’s a good athlete but doesn’t seem to use his athletic ability at all, he’s in love with his jumper but he has a mediocre jumper. I guess you could turn it around as a positive and say that if he starts tapping his athleticism he can be good.

Chandler is also the only guy to appear twice. Some of the guys only came into the league at 22, and might have been on the list at 23 as well. The rest improved their games or were out of the league.

(Substituted blk% >= 1.5 in place of ast-rate. Some of the same guys: http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&type=per_minute&per_minute_base=36&year_min=1986&year_max=2009&season_start=1&season_end=2&age_min=18&age_max=22&height_min=78&height_max=82&lg_id=NBA&franch_id=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=F&qual=&c1stat=ts_pct&c1comp=lt&c1val=.530&c2stat=trb_pct&c2comp=lt&c2val=11&c3stat=blk_pct&c3comp=gt&c3val=1.5&c4stat=tov_pct&c4comp=lt&c4val=12&order_by=per)

“I also think he deserves some slack because teams generally packed it in with zone defenses against the Knicks due to our lack of outside shooting.”

Knicks were mediocre from 3 point range, 20th. Plenty of wings with much better stats than Chandler (Harrington on his own team, not to mention the wings on the 10 teams that shot worse than Knicks from 3) could use the same excuse.

“I also think Chandler is a pretty good defensive player and might become excellent, especially at SF.”

He blocks shots well at the 3 (not incredibly, mind you), but he’s only solid defensively at this point.
Thing that really bugs me here is that Balkman was a much better man defender, better shot blocker, better stealer, better rebounder, and more efficient scorer. I’m not saying Balkman is the end-all or answer to make the Knicks a good team, but they let a good player go to develop a bad player…

“Nash, for example, wasn’t much of a player until he was in the league 4 years at age 26 and only Nostradamus could have predicted he would become a 2-time league MVP based on his performance at age 22.”

Nash is a pretty bad example for several reasons.
-First, he’s clearly the exception in some regards and not the rule. Bruce Bowen was ignored coming out of college, but that doesn’t mean I can make the argument that every mid-major player in the country is the next Bruce Bowen.
-He was Jason Kidd’s back-up his first two seasons. Made it a little hard to see daylight, and as a result he played some SG.
-Nash was already a very, very good shooter and fairly efficient scorer early on. His assist-rate was almost 30 as a rookie, but he played more off the ball his 2nd season so his assist rate fell to 25. Wouldn’t have taken Nostradamus to figure out that he’d be valuable in the right role, although I agree it would have to figure out how good he’d be.
Nash v. Chandler, first two seasons.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=nashst01&y1=1998&p2=chandwi01&y2=2009

“And while he played very well for Dallas in his last years there(also with some pretty good players), his career really took off under D’Antoni.”

Whoa there tiger. Nash was already one of the best PGs in the NBA in Dallas. He ran the best offensive team EVER up until that point. He got better under D’Antoni but he was very good previously.
Nash through end of Dallas career: http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=nashst01&y1=2004

“So I have to give D’Antoni some benefit of the doubt in valuing Chandler and in not seeing the current PGs as amenable to his vision for the team. Clearly he would have loved to have either Rubio or Curry running the show. He apparently didn’t see what he was looking for in the other available PGs either, e.g Lawson, Holiday, Jennings.”

Coaches, even good ones, generally make terrible GMs… I’ve never spoken to D’Antoni, though, so I have no idea what he thinks about those players. He clearly liked Duhon and Nate enough to ride with them all season, and hasn’t protested the drafting of Douglas. I think he values Chandler’s potential, as do all Knicks fans. I just think that people who are really high on Chandler are more likely to be disappointed than not.

I don’t think Duhon/Douglas is anyone’s vision of PG heaven, the position is just not really a concern to me given the state of the Knicks.

I’m pretty comfortable if they put Douglas out there behind Duhon. Might as well kick the tires on a 23 year old rookie to see if he’s got a future in the league. You can take the lack of shooting/defense in summer league as a negative, but it can also be viewed as a positive: he played well in the areas we had questions about, and his strengths should come around at least to some extent. Summer League at least made it look like he can bring the ball up the court for 15-20 mpg. If necessary/ advantageous, throw Nate a few minutes at PG and Duhon is down to reasonable minutes.

Hill may have a hard time finding minutes. I’m interested to see if Curry and Jeffries are force-fed minutes to increase trade value. I wouldn’t mind that strategy if it gets them traded, especially since a slow starts and relatively strong finish will give the Knicks momentum going into the offseason (of course a slow start might mean they remain unmovable). If they’re not and D’Antoni is strictly putting the guys out there who he wants, then Hill should be able to get minutes if he’s any good, maybe not too many.

I agree completely that Nate should spend his time at the 2, where the Knicks have little else. If Duhon/Douglas gets injured or Douglas isn’t up to the task, though, Nate can slide over, leaving Hughes, Chandler, Jeffries, maybe an Almond and/or Wafer, and maybe even Douglas at the 2. Not ideal, but doable.

Chandler’s had two seasons in the league at this point and just hasn’t impressed me. Certainly I’m hoping that he continues to improve significantly and expect some improvement at worst, but I’m just not sure he’ll ever be a player I want in my rotation. He’s capable of it, but has to completely change his game and mindset. It’s not a matter of working on developing a few new skills, if he continues to shoot 75% jumpers he will never be good.
Plenty of people play multiple positions, and Chandler will likely be asked to do so again. Duhon may also improve next season, with experience in D’Antoni’s system.
I would also say there’s more upside at the 3, although I’m tempted to say that Douglas has more upside than Chandler, if only because he’s an unknown quantity. Gallo’s got to have the most upside on the team (by a large margin in my estimation).

Mixed feelings on D’Antoni’s insistence on his system… It’s good that he knows what he wants, and if he gets it he’s proven he can win. As someone who is sort of sitting on the fence between solidly good and great coach, he may have to get a little more flexible. If his success depends on having Steve Nash at PG… I mean most coaches can win with a Steve Nash (especially with all the talent he’s had besides him in Phoenix).

Despite the difference in summer league play (and I thought it was more marginal than glaring) we are most likely counting on Douglas far more than on Hill. If we sign Lee, he will play 35-40 mpg at PF, with Hill, Harrington and Jeffries (or the C’s and SF’s) there to back him up. If Hill doesn’t play much or at all next year, it isn’t that big of a deal, other than the embarrassment of drafting him at #8.

Douglas, on the other hand, is penciled in as our main back-up at PG based on zero NBA experience, behind Duhon, who is not good to begin with. Douglas’ summer league was promising, but hardly spectacular, and that was against retreads and rookies, and at age 23. In particular, he did not look as good at either of his biggest strengths in college (shooting and defense) as he did at ball-handling and passing. I am optimistic about him, but as a GM I would definitely want a better plan B than Nate unless we shore up the SG position.

“Nate resigning is what would make PG a strength for the Knicks, IMO. He’ll probably play most of his minutes at the 2, but he’s there to play PG should Duhon or Douglas go down.”

When Nate plays PG, he’s not playing SG, which further dilutes that already thin position. Beyond that, nobody else on the team is even remotely qualified to play PG. If we could trade some of our forward largesse for a decent SG, I’d feel better about Nate sliding over to PG for extended minutes.

“SF depends a lot on Danilo’s back. Chandler was no better than Duhon last season.”

Chandler, in his second season (Duhon’s 5th) at age 21 Duhon was 26), was required to play major minutes (33 mpg to Duhon’s 36) at multiple positions (Duhon only played PG) , and was certainly at least decent. My sense was that his natural position is SF, and that he will surpass Duhon next year in a more stable and suitable role. He and Gallo are both question marks, but until D’antoni and Walsh find out what they can really do (or can’t do) they probably aren’t going anywhere. I personally think they have way more upside at SF than Duhon and Douglas have at PG.

D’Antoni has been clear that he needs an “engine” at PG to make his system go, which is probably why there is all the interest at that one position despite weaknesses at other positions, that and the PG availability in the FA market.

It means that he was more impressive than Hill, who is one representative of the PF position.

I don’t think Duhon is great or even good, but he’s decent and that’s more than the Knicks can really expect out of 1/2 their SGs and 100% of their Cs.

Nate resigning is what would make PG a strength for the Knicks, IMO. He’ll probably play most of his minutes at the 2, but he’s there to play PG should Duhon or Douglas go down.

SF depends a lot on Danilo’s back. Chandler was no better than Duhon last season. You do have Harrington there as well, don’t know if he’ll play SF or PF or both. Last season he played almost exclusively at the 4 and 5.

With Lee I think 4 is definitely the Knicks best position. Lee’s their best player, Harrington is one of their best 3 or 4 players, and they just took Hill in the top 10 of the draft.

The sample size is tiny, but Almond has shot the ball terribly in the NBA. Douglas’ biggest strengths in college were shooting and defense.

I feel like DeRozan is the kind of guy who will shine in Summer League. He’s athletic and all he does is score. I don’t think there’s any doubt he’ll look like an NBA player in a few seasons, and he may even become a high volume scorer. The question is whether he’ll ever score efficiently or do anything else. If he’s out on the court and scoring a lot of points his team is probably looking at shelling out big bucks on a young player who shows some signs of being great, but also some signs of being mediocre. So you may end up either overpaying hoping he continues to improve or losing him before he actually does improve.
Jennings is another guy who was born to play in the Summer League, although he was pretty impressive to me since I was really wondering what to expect.

Almond probably won’t be a rotation player, but he definitely can shoot. That is the only edge he has on Douglas, but an important one.

Hindsight is 20-20, but DeRozan might be the guy down the road we regret not taking, especially if Hill doesn’t develop. He was very impressive in summer league. I agree that you draft the best prospect available, and I don’t think Hill was obviously a better prospect than DeRozan.

(Without any player movement) Even if every single thing goes as well as possible the Knicks are probably a bit over .500, which means they are pretty bad because chances are every single thing won’t go right.

I wouldn’t really compare Douglas to Almond in terms of crap shoots. Almond has had two seasons in the league and done nothing. We’ve got nothing to judge Douglas on. With Almond the most likely outcome is that he’ll stink, with Douglas the most likely outcome is whatever you thought of him before the draft + Summer League.

“You could make the argument that we should have drafted a SG (Derozan?) at #8.”

I would definitely not argue that, unless you think DeRozan was the best prospect available. Why draft for need, especially on a mediocre, rebuilding team?

I’m not so sure I would come to the conclusion that we generally have a bad team just yet. We have among the most unproven teams considering our youth and the recovery status of Curry and Gallo, and therefore the potential to be a pretty bad team. On the other hand, we also have the potential to be a pretty good team if everything goes somewhat according to plan, meaning:

Curry contributes at C in a meaningful way

Gallo plays 20-30 healthy mpg at SF

Chandler marginally improves his offensive skills and splits time at SF and SG

Toney is NBA ready at backup PG

Hill steadily improves and becomes at least a rotation player by mid-season if not earlier

Darko plays hard and well in a contract year and a better opportunity and system for him

Almond becomes the next Von Wafer, or at least a 3-pt threat for 10 mpg

Hughes either improves or is traded or phased out

Duhon, Harrington, Nate, Lee and Jeffries do what they normally do but in more sharply defined roles, e.g Lee at PF more than C, Duhon getting less minutes.

I think it’s pretty clear that we are either going to re-sign Lee and Nate for at least next year or sign-and-trade them for something that improves our team or at least makes us no worse.

I think it is fair to say that PG is a position of paramount concern, especially given D’Antoni’s system, which depends even more heavily on that position. Assuming we sign Lee, we are stronger and more balanced up front than we have been in years, at least on paper. Duhon is at best a below average starter at PG. Douglas is a total crap shoot. Nate is probably not the answer there either. So even in the best case scenario, we will not be very good at this critical position unless there is a trade or if something unexpected happens e.g. Douglas excels or Nate transforms his mindset (he has the tools to be an above average PG.)

That being said, I would agree that PG may not be our most pressing need. I think that SG is a much bigger question mark right now. Hughes is only fair, Nate is undersized, Chandler is more of a pure SF and Gallo is probably not quick enough. Almond is intriguing, but also a crap shoot. A very good SG can make up for deficiencies at PG. You could make the argument that we should have drafted a SG (Derozan?) at #8.

What position are the Knicks better off at? Without resigning Lee and Nate I count…. oh…. none. Maybe SF, but given how Chandler and Danilo played (or didn’t play in the latter case) last season that’s dubious.

I just don’t see why everyone is so focused on one position when the Knicks generally have a bad team.